Possible duplicate or bad naming (greenclip and rofi-greenclip)
Hello,
I have found the following two packages:
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/greenclip https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/rofi-greenclip
At first by name they seem like duplicates, but it seems greenclip is a source package and rofi-greenclip is a binary package but has not added the -bin suffix which has caused duplication.
I can't really "flag for bad naming" so I decided to post it here to bring attention to it so it can be fixed.
As greenclip is an open source project a binary package should be suffixed with -bin as per the packaging guidelines, so although greenclip is a duplicate it is actually correctly named unlike the latter.
As it seems to be a rofi integration the name "rofi-greenclip" does seem like a much better name, so I would suggest the following:
- rofi-greenclip is renamed to rofi-greenclip-bin as it is a binary package. - greenclip being a source package is named correctly, however as it is a rofi addition it might be better to rename it to rofi-greenclip, but there is no conventions to the best of my knowledge which "force" this rename, just a possible improvement.
Let me know if I have misunderstood or made any mistakes, or if you disagree with my suggestion :)
Also I hate to point this out, but the reason I found this was editing the ArchWiki, I am not playing moderator, an wiki page can not provide the right package name if there is two packages which are conflicting one another. I had to point this out to prevent bad faith so I apologise for being defensive.
Take care,
Hello,
Slight complication I have realised. rofi-greenclip is maintained by upstream:
https://github.com/erebe/greenclip
Upstream has poorly named their package by not following the conventions, is this an issue I should take up with upstream instead and request them rename the package or update it to become a source package?
I have also realised that the ArchWiki page on it is a direct copy of the Github README as well, what a mess :( (I am aware this is offtopic but a little context doesn't hurt :P)
Take care,
I believe your first step should be a comment.
On Sep 26, 2023, at 6:39 AM, Polarian polarian@polarian.dev wrote:
Hello,
Slight complication I have realised. rofi-greenclip is maintained by upstream:
https://github.com/erebe/greenclip
Upstream has poorly named their package by not following the conventions, is this an issue I should take up with upstream instead and request them rename the package or update it to become a source package?
I have also realised that the ArchWiki page on it is a direct copy of the Github README as well, what a mess :( (I am aware this is offtopic but a little context doesn't hurt :P)
Take care,
Polarian GPG signature: 0770E5312238C760 Website: https://polarian.dev JID/XMPP: polarian@icebound.dev
Hello,
Comment on which?
Besides, comments don't tend to be read by a lot of maintainers as it gets too chaotic, maybe i should have cc'd them into the mailing list (in case they were not subscribed) so they know it was being discussed here?
And what would I comment anyways, because say rofi-greenclip did fix their issue and renamed OR rewrote as a source package, then there is still a duplicate issue... unless it is renamed... but then there is inconsistent naming...
I don't know, it seems like a messy situation to me, and I feel a comment could cause more noise than it is worth, as a lot of people follow this package...
Take care,
In my experience all active maintainers I’ve seen read comments. I was suggesting to comment on rofi-greenclip to rename it, but it appears that the maintainer is wholly inactive… since they didn’t respond to xiota. Maybe after two weeks an orphan request would be possible. Still I suggest you to comment.
On Sep 26, 2023, at 11:23 AM, Polarian polarian@polarian.dev wrote:
Hello,
Comment on which?
Besides, comments don't tend to be read by a lot of maintainers as it gets too chaotic, maybe i should have cc'd them into the mailing list (in case they were not subscribed) so they know it was being discussed here?
And what would I comment anyways, because say rofi-greenclip did fix their issue and renamed OR rewrote as a source package, then there is still a duplicate issue... unless it is renamed... but then there is inconsistent naming...
I don't know, it seems like a messy situation to me, and I feel a comment could cause more noise than it is worth, as a lot of people follow this package...
Take care,
Polarian GPG signature: 0770E5312238C760 Website: https://polarian.dev JID/XMPP: polarian@icebound.dev
participants (2)
-
Lime In a Jacket (Aaron Liu)
-
Polarian